« Trackbacks turned off | Main | Week in Review 1(8) »
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Random Security Checks versus Racial Profiling
In the wake of 9/11 (still) and the most recent terrorist attacks in London there has been quite a bit of discussion online and off about the increased vigilance at airports across the United States. While security has been extremely tight since 9/11, the London attacks have caused New York City subway security to initiate “random searches” of both bags and people. Needless to say, millions of Americans, not just in New York, have been bitching and moaning not about the use of searches but about the fact that they are random. Many people feel that it is wrong to search old ladies and mothers with children because they are supposedly far less likely to commit an act of terrorism than a person with Middle Eastern descent. These critics would wholeheartedly support racial profiling based solely on the fact that the few terrorist attacks on American soil that have occurred were carried out by individuals with such ancestry. Criticisms such as these are ludicrous and completely miss the point of the nature of terrorism and its causes.
I would like to think that the American public, or at least those with an opinion, are intelligent enough to make distinctions between race, religion, and actions but they are not. My issue with critics of random searches (or any form of racial profiling for that matter) is that they are convinced that people’s actions can be predicted based on how they look. I’ll avoid discussing my beliefs about race because we would be here for hours, but suffice it to say that I become visibly agitated when a person or group of people cite race as a meaningful criterion for any decision or basis for opinion-forming. What critics of random searching often forget (or don’t realize altogether) is that race, religion, and action have no causal connection. In other words, a person is not a Muslim because he or she has a rusty complexion with dark hair and eyes. Taken to the extreme, a person is not even a Muslim because he or she is born in a certain geographical location. A person is Muslim because that person is influenced by other people’s preconceived ideas of the world and the way it works. For these reasons, it makes no logical sense to single out in a security check an individual who appears to be of Middle Eastern descent.
My experience has been that a Muslim extremist is more likely to commit an act of terrorism than a Tibetan Buddhist monk. Still, it would be wrong to single out individuals simply because they are Muslim (or not). While this would not be racial profiling, it would be profiling of another sort and just as logically impossible (not to mention a huge waste of time). So, if it makes no sense employ racial or other forms of profiling, what are we left with? You got it, random security checks. Would it be possible for a Muslim extremist to slip through the random checks? Is it possible for a pregnant Caucasian woman from suburban Ohio to strap a bomb to her body and blow up a subway station in the name of Islam? The answer to both of these questions is yes and it is why, effectiveness aside, random security checks are the only logical measure that can be taken to catch would-be terrorists.
Updates:
Bradford Plumer has this post on MoJo Blog which mentions that racial profiling could potentially create more problems that would outweigh any perceived benefit:
Even if a particular Arab never rode the mass transit, he would realize that if he wanted to do so, he would very likely be searched, and that thought in itself could lead to real resentment. Moreover, it's hard to expect police officers to remain courteous and non-racist if they are explicitly instructed to use race as a factor in their surveillance. It's also very hard to argue that telling commuters to be aware of young Arab or South Asian men could possibly avoid exacerbating racial tensions in general. Another more practical problem is that the police could miss out on other terrorist threats that aren't so swarthy.
Plumer's post also links to this article in which James Forman Jr. argues that even conservatives should oppose racial profiling:
Most conservatives who support racial profiling are not racist; they simply consider the practice an essential ingredient of effective law enforcement. But it isn't. Indeed, the great irony of conservative support for racial profiling is that conservative principles themselves explain why racial profiling actually makes law enforcement less effective.
Posted by Will at July 28, 2005 04:43 PM in Personal Reflections